Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Social Bias Probing: Fairness Benchmarking for Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.09090 v4 pith:LOPND6QU submitted 2023-11-15 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords modelsbiaseslanguagebiasidentitiessocialsofabeen
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

While the impact of social biases in language models has been recognized, prior methods for bias evaluation have been limited to binary association tests on small datasets, limiting our understanding of bias complexities. This paper proposes a novel framework for probing language models for social biases by assessing disparate treatment, which involves treating individuals differently according to their affiliation with a sensitive demographic group. We curate SoFa, a large-scale benchmark designed to address the limitations of existing fairness collections. SoFa expands the analysis beyond the binary comparison of stereotypical versus anti-stereotypical identities to include a diverse range of identities and stereotypes. Comparing our methodology with existing benchmarks, we reveal that biases within language models are more nuanced than acknowledged, indicating a broader scope of encoded biases than previously recognized. Benchmarking LMs on SoFa, we expose how identities expressing different religions lead to the most pronounced disparate treatments across all models. Finally, our findings indicate that real-life adversities faced by various groups such as women and people with disabilities are mirrored in the behavior of these models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Veracity Bias and Beyond: Uncovering LLMs' Hidden Beliefs in Problem-Solving Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs show measurable veracity bias: they attribute correct solutions more often to some demographic groups and grade identical essays differently depending on the stated authorship.

  2. The Science of Evaluating Foundation Models

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey-and-checklist proposal that organizes LLM evaluation into an ABCD framework (Algorithm, Big Data, Computation, Domain Expertise) for context-aware, documented assessment.

Pith tools